CAST: Universal Design for Learning

March 2003

By Erica S. Perl

From 2000 to 2002, the NCAC Policy Group compiled data concerning national trends and current issues affecting students’ ability to access the general curriculum.We relied on a variety of sources, including the federal Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), state government authorities, school administrators, teachers, parents and student advocates. Our research focused on nine states: California, Connecticut, Kentucky, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Texas. This is a summary of the results of this project.

Systemic Issues

We found a high degree of correlation between some of the issues that we categorized as systemic. For example, Minnesota, which has a good reputation for its progressive approaches to special education, has a funding system which is “neutral” as to type of disability and educational setting. Consequently, this system does not create incentives for overidentifying disability or overusing restrictive placements. Another financial practice that promotes access for all students is Massachusetts’ policy of having school districts remain fiscally responsible for students placed out-of-district. This policy discourages districts from sending students with disabilities or other special educational needs to out-of-district placements just to save money.

We were, however, concerned by the extent to which some states fail to collect special education data or do so ineffectively. In our view, a state’s failure to prioritize data collection indirectly encourages districts to shift funds away from special education services. We were also troubled by the inadequacies of pre-referral programs in some states. Thankfully, this is an issue that many states are addressing (for example, by requiring that preliminary interventions precede special education referrals).

Referral Issues

We also looked at special education referral practices in each of the selected states, with particular attention given to the problems of misdiagnoses and inappropriate referrals. In many states, we found that the common problems of underidentification (which occurs when students who need special educational services are not referred) and overidentification (which occurs when students are referred for special education despite their lack of need for services) disproportionately affect minority students, low-income students and students with limited English language skills.

We also looked at the problem of overclassification (which occurs when students who are referred to special education are identified as having more serious disabilities than they may in fact have). We found that African-Americans, American Indians and poor children stood out as the student groups that were considerably overrepresented in the diagnosis categories of emotional and behavioral disturbances and mental retardation.

We also noted one small but growing referral trend: special education referrals that are initiated by parents in order to secure more flexible testing conditions for their children and give them a perceived advantage in mandatory standardized assessments.

Teacher Issues

We looked at several issues pertaining to general education and special education teachers. We discussed the widespread problems of teacher shortages and certification issues. We also looked at the need for improved and increased opportunities for teachers to learn how to provide substantive access to the curriculum for students with disabilities.

In addition, we paid attention to conversations with teachers across the country. We learned some of the reasons why many teachers feel undersupported and unable to provide meaningful access. We also learned about school practices that can have significant impact on these circumstances. We noted the extent to which collaboration and cross-disciplinary training could have important benefits for all students.

We also discussed the inherent difficulties with using and retaining qualified teaching aides and assistants, as well as the benefits of investing in paraprofessional training and support. In Texas, the educational consulting group LR Consulting has studied these issues and proposed strategies for the effective use of paraprofessionals in classrooms that include students with disabilities.

Classroom and Curriculum Issues

Classification issues and the individualized educational plan (“IEP”) process vary tremendously from state to state. However, in several states we received reports of a tendency to rely to heavily on rigid classifications rather than individual student needs. This problem seemed to be exacerbated by the lack of standard IEP forms and protocols, as well as by inconsistent identification methodologies.

We also looked at the ways that districts are attempting to use different classroom settings to meet student needs and achieve compliance with IDEA. In addition, we studied the extent to which schools are providing students with needed additional services, such as extended school year programs and assistive technology, as opposed to merely finding ways to use existing resources to save money. Advocates advised us that “low-tech” options – even outmoded ones - are often preferred by schools. They also told us that, even when assistive technology is specified in the IEP, it can be difficult to find personnel that can train students and teachers to use and support the devices.

We looked at three states with charter schools programs. We learned that the special education populations of charter schools are often lower than those in the local public schools, despite the fact that both kids of schools accept students from the same applicant pool. One reason for this may be because charter schools have a financial interest in discouraging students with disabilities from enrolling. Most charter schools operate independently and therefore cannot spread the costs of individual students’ education over many schools. In Massachusetts, the state is addressing this issue by carefully monitoring charter schools statistics and exploring the option of uniting charter schools through a cooperative organization.

Assessment and Testing Issues

A major trend we observed in all of the states we studied was the increased use of standardized tests. In many states, this includes so-called "high stakes" tests, which link test outcome to grade advancement and/or diploma requirements.

One concern that we had was whether states were using “high stakes” tests to raise expectations and learning opportunities for students with disabilities or whether they were using them counterproductively (by setting unrealistic or unreasonable goals and providing inadequate preparation and support). We also looked at states’ approaches to testing accommodations and exemptions. For example, Texas has sought to include as many students as possible in testing or alternative assessments by limiting exemptions to 5% of students with disabilities. If a district feels it needs to offer exemptions to more students, this decision will be reviewed by the state Department of Education. This approach attempts to strike a balance by offering districts some flexibility to account for variances in their student bodies while maintaining an emphasis on including students with disabilities in the overall assessment scheme.

In addition to standardized tests, we looked at the pros and cons of alternative portfolio assessments (“APA”). Advocates were quick to advise us that, although this means of assessment is more flexible and responsive to specific student needs, the accuracy of the assessment depends on the level of skills measured. They also expressed concern that some schools routinely encourage APA for students with low incidence disabilities without regard for each individual student’s ability to learn.

We also looked at the relationship between test scores and school funding in the selected states. Our concern was that, although badly needed financial support can be a positive motivator for floundering schools, financial rewards based on test scores may encourage the exclusion of many students with disabilities from testing, curriculum-based preparation and educational opportunities.

Additional Services

Our research revealed that many of the states profiled are not prioritizing non-academic and so-called “additional services” to students with disabilities. In particular, mental health services, technological assistance, services related to social skills and needs and transitional support services are being neglected or underfunded in many states. Since additional services can have a pivotal role in students’ ability to access the general curriculum, we view this problem as extremely important.

Some parents and advocates advised us of the critical need for such services to be specifically enumerated in IEPs. However, if a school district is providing inadequate services (e.g. a part-time mental health worker who cannot meet the counseling and guidance needs of all students referred to him or her), requiring these services in the IEP may not actually achieve the desired goal.

Technological assistance, in particular, is often neglected unless it is specifically required in the IEP. We were pleased to learn that some states are making strides toward the increased use of educational technology to improve access to the general curriculum. For example, Massachusetts participates in the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, a federally funded program that provides educators with training in assistive technology, and Texas has a state committee working on developing computer-base learning models for students with visual impairments. The Texas Technology Access Project assists teachers in making appropriate assistive technology recommendations for their students

Special Circumstances

The first kind of “special circumstances” we investigated was that of the educational services provided in disciplinary settings (both within local schools and within state juvenile justice systems). We found, unsurprisingly, that the quality of educational services within disciplinary settings is often substandard. For students with disabilities, this can have severe consequences. If the standard level of educational services in such a setting is poor, it is unlikely that a student with disabilities will receive the kind of instruction and support necessary to gain meaningful access to the curriculum.

We also heard from advocates and attorneys that states are reluctant to improve these programs and services, even in the face of legislative and judicial scrutiny. One advocated told us that a contributing factor to the problems seen in both school discipline and state juvenile justice facilities in his state is the schools’ failure to take preliminary corrective steps (like thorough assessment of the student in question and consideration of intermediary interventions) before referring students to law enforcement.

The second special circumstance we looked at was that of educational opportunities for students with disabilities in foster care placements. We found that the lack of continuity that often accompanies foster care placements (in terms of home and school environments, caregivers, IEPs and classroom settings) can severely compromise students’ ability to access the general curriculum. These problems can be further exacerbated if English is not a student’s first language and/or if a student has emotional difficulties as well as learning disabilities. In addition, funding and “red tape” can provide further complications, which can prevent students from receiving substantive educational access while they are being resolved.

Communication Issues

One communication issue we explored was the availability of information regarding school policies and practices for parents, students and other concerned parties such as advocates. We looked at the extent to which states are posting information on the internet, providing information in multiple languages, and considering the needs of families from other cultures. In Minnesota, for example, the state has responded well to the needs of the Hmong population by translating many forms into Hmong and providing a Hmong dictionary of special education terms on its Web site.

We also looked at dispute resolution practices, with particular attention to the issue of whether families are provided with legitimate opportunities to advocate effectively for students with disabilities. We learned that some states, like New Jersey, have created detailed guides to teach families about their rights at these proceedings.

Concluding Remarks

In conclusion, our greatest areas of concern were the large scale problems we saw, such as funding systems that threatened to encourage over- or under-diagnosis of disability, severe teacher shortages and high-stakes testing programs which have been adopted in the absence of proper consideration of the needs of student with disabilities. These kinds of problems can significantly compromise students' access to the curriculum.

While many states are making positive strides by focusing attention and resources on early education and prereferral programs, such as literacy initiatives, this is an area where much more can and should be done. In addition, educational services for ELL students with disabilities were absent or lacking in many of the communities we looked at, sometimes despite significant need. This is another area in which the allocation of additional resources (including, ideally, more bilingual special education personnel) could increase the likelihood of these students being appropriately diagnosed and assisted and could reduce the disproportionate representation of minority group members in special education.

We were impressed by the commitment of individuals we spoke with when compiling this report. We saw evidence of creative problem-solving on the part of many districts and schools, particularly those that invested in preventative measures and participated in programs designed to support students and provide meaningful curriculum access. However, we remain convinced that unless some of the problems we identified are addressed, many students with disabilities will continue to confront barriers to obtaining the free appropriate public education to which they are entitled under IDEA.

The issues addressed in this research are of ongoing concern to the Policy Group of the NCAC. Consequently, we request that any information which might supplement or update this project’s research be brought to the attention of the Policy Group. This way, we will be able to provide updated coverage of national and local trends and developments that affect access to the general curriculum.

Erica Perl can be reached at the following e-mail address: Erica_perl@harvard.edu

Citation

Cite this paper as

Perl, E. S. (2003). Overview of state studies. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved [insert date] from http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_overview.html

Download Options

To download documents:

• Windows users: Right click the link to the document and choose Save Target As... from the popup menu.
• Mac users: Control-click the link to the document and choose Download Link to Disk from the popup menu.

Click here for this document in Microsoft Word format